Hall of Fame Early Baseball Committee

[CardCollector]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I'm not a fan of all of this looking way-far-back stuff. No one's alive who even saw the players play and the people who did see them play (or played alongside them) didn't think they were worthy enough at the time the Hall opened (yes, I know that's a VERY generalized comment), so it feels strange. Basing inclusion on theoretical stats misses the point IMHO.

Put it into modern context. Jeff Kent was a monster run producer at second base of all places. We all saw him play. Why the heck wasn't he a first-balloter? He gets absolutely no love (some say because of his personality?) and will eventually be dropped from the ballot, but some guy from the 1800's who might have a decent WAR stat is being considered??

I have no opinion on Kent one way or the other, but stats like WAR aren't "theoretical." They are just more nuanced than the blunt stats available a hundred years ago (which could also explain why some of these guys weren't enshrined previously). If WAR, or ERA+, or other SABR-type stats were around then, the Hall would look very different now.

[tazdmb]

Surprise Doc Adams is getting no love in this thread. I think if anyone makes it, it would be him, as a contributor. The baseball community has learned so much about his contributions to the invention of the game in the last decade this was previously unknown. Would be surprised to see any new players, outside negro leaguers, get in next year-especially if Joe Morgan and Bert Blyleven are back on the committee. Still remember that Blyleven was on last committee and boasted that he did all his research-on Wikipedia.

[judsonhamlin]

I agree with Matthews, if you credit his NA time and victories. Otherwise, I think Dahlen, Mullane and Van Haltren all are worthy. I'm surprised Spottswood Poles hasn't gotten more support as a Negro League star (plus being a WW1 hero).

[OldOriole]

Originally Posted by CardCollector

I have no opinion on Kent one way or the other, but stats like WAR aren't "theoretical." They are just more nuanced than the blunt stats available a hundred years ago (which could also explain why some of these guys weren't enshrined previously). If WAR, or ERA+, or other SABR-type stats were around then, the Hall would look very different now.

As mentioned, measurements of stats like WAR are not theoretical. WAR also helps to put stats and achievements in historical context that have taken place over different time periods.

In your example, Jeff Kent is not (in part) a first ballot HOFer because his WAR is 55.4 - good enough for 240th all time (right in between Chet Lemon and Ian Kinsler). Jim McCormick is 74th all-time in WAR, just above Hoss Radbourn. Dahlen is similar and ranks 78th all-time (and 7th all time for shortstops). They have about 20 more WAR than Kent. WAR allows us to take a look at players we could never see with our own eyes and there's still a few (but not many) that have been overlooked by the Hall.

[clydepepper]

32nd post in this thread...and FINALLY...

Dummy Hoy is mentioned!


Very Deserving!!

.

[Ben Yourg]

"Dummy Hoy" -Way overdue
Imagine anyone playing with his handicaps,in the 1800s?

[Jason19th]

I never thought of Hoy all a hall of famer but when I looked at his stats I discovered that when he retired he held a number of important outfield records and was second all time in walks. That sure sounds like a hofer to me

[packs]

It doesn't have to be as a player either. I know it's often debunked or explained in some other way but the story goes we owe balls and strikes and safe and out signals to him.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by OldOriole

As mentioned, measurements of stats like WAR are not theoretical. WAR also helps to put stats and achievements in historical context that have taken place over different time periods.

In your example, Jeff Kent is not (in part) a first ballot HOFer because his WAR is 55.4 - good enough for 240th all time (right in between Chet Lemon and Ian Kinsler). Jim McCormick is 74th all-time in WAR, just above Hoss Radbourn. Dahlen is similar and ranks 78th all-time (and 7th all time for shortstops). They have about 20 more WAR than Kent. WAR allows us to take a look at players we could never see with our own eyes and there's still a few (but not many) that have been overlooked by the Hall.

It is theoretical. It is a made up stat. bWAR is not the same as fWAR and there can be a large difference between the two. If you are going to say someone is a Hofer because their WAR is above a certain number, then you are saying one person should choose who belongs in the HOF, either baseball reference or fangraphs without any, without any transparency.

[CardCollector]

Originally Posted by rats60

It is theoretical. It is a made up stat. bWAR is not the same as fWAR and there can be a large difference between the two. If you are going to say someone is a Hofer because their WAR is above a certain number, then you are saying one person should choose who belongs in the HOF, either baseball reference or fangraphs without any, without any transparency.

I mean, all stats are made up in some sense. So are the stats that were readily available in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether newer stats more accurately capture a player's value in a way that wasn't apparent to Hall voters a long time ago. Using the best stats from yesteryear and today, we can get a pretty good idea of who should be in the Hall who wasn't enshrined originally. I like Carothers and Dahlen, and from this thread I now appreciate Harry Stovey, but I don't think we should reject more nuanced stats as "theoretical."

[Fred]

They could divide the 19th century into a couple/few categories that include players and "pioneers". Pioneers would be those that were around in the earliest phases of the game that had no way of fulfilling the 10 year rule. If they started around the mid 1880s, then they at least had a good chance to reach the 10 year criteria.

What's also tough is that there will be SABRist that will indicate the AA was not as competitive as the NL, which would then remove Caruthers from possible consideration because 175 of his 218 wins were wile playing in the AA.

Pioneer:
Ross Barnes (how could they exclude him? Had 9 years but most ABs in any season was < 400).
Mathews (combo of pioneer and player with 10 years, 297 Ws)

Players:
Caruthers (ya know, Pedro Martinez could have also had over 200 Ws and less than 100 Ls if he had not come back for that last season where he was 5-1 for Philly)
Stovey - he led the leagues in so many statistical categories during his playing days (5 x HR, 2 x SB, 4 x R, 4 x 3B)
VanHaltren - didn't lead the league in many yearly categories, but 12 x 100 run seasons is fairly impressive.

Probably many more arguably very deserving.

Two players come to mind that had (5) really good years and a few not so statistically relevant years:
Corcoran
Orr

[CardCollector]

[Deleting a double post]

[CardCollector]

Originally Posted by CardCollector

What's also tough is that there will be SABRist that will indicate the AA was not as competitive as the NL, which would then remove Caruthers from possible consideration because 175 of his 218 wins were wile playing in the AA.

"Not Bad for a Beer League" (see p. 55 of this link: http://research.sabr.org/journals/fi...Pastime-15.pdf) does a nice job of presenting some evidence suggesting that the AA was pretty competitive. Here's the takeaway:

"All of the available evidence--championship series, exhibition games, incidence of bushers and the experience of transferred players--suggests that relative parity was achieved between the two leagues between 1886-1889. Partial evidence (exhibition wins, percent of bushers, a tied championship series) supports the theory that this state of parity was achieved as early as 1885. (Indeed, even the Spalding Guide of 1886 admitted that the American Association clubs had shown 'marked improvement in the strength of their teams' in 1885.)

[ValKehl]

+1 for William Ellsworth Hoy. Selected stats for his 14-year career (1 year in the Am. Assn.):
1,787 games - 2,048 hits - .288 batting average - 1,006 walks (vs. 345 Ks) - 134 hit by pitches - .386 on-base % - 596 stolen bases - 1,429 runs (avg. 102 runs per year) - 32.6 WAR.

Someone (hi Leon) says all threads (or is it all posts?) should include a pic of a card:

[packs]

Good idea. Here's a Stovey:

[bobcatfunds]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

+1 for William Ellsworth Hoy. Selected stats for his 14-year career (1 year in the Am. Assn.):
1,787 games - 2,048 hits - .288 batting average - 1,006 walks (vs. 345 Ks) - 134 hit by pitches - .386 on-base % - 596 stolen bases - 1,429 runs (avg. 102 runs per year) - 32.6 WAR.

Someone (hi Leon) says all threads (or is it all posts?) should include a pic of a card:

Yes! My 2nd grade class just read this last week. (I may or may not have talked about Old Judge cards for a bit as well.) :-)

[Jason19th]

While I think WAR is a great stat it is a Theory. It is not an objective measurement like batting average or era. It is a formula that attempts to predict value based on a combination of objective measurements and subjective weights applied to those measurements. It produces a value that cannot yet actually be confirmed. If that is not a theory I don’t know what is

[rats60]

Originally Posted by CardCollector

I mean, all stats are made up in some sense. So are the stats that were readily available in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether newer stats more accurately capture a player's value in a way that wasn't apparent to Hall voters a long time ago. Using the best stats from yesteryear and today, we can get a pretty good idea of who should be in the Hall who wasn't enshrined originally. I like Carothers and Dahlen, and from this thread I now appreciate Harry Stovey, but I don't think we should reject more nuanced stats as "theoretical."

WAR isn't based on actual wins, it is based on theoretical wins. Here is an article by Bill James expaining it.

https://www.billjamesonline.com/judge_and_altuve/

[packs]

Here's my Hoy:

[triwak]

I'm pulling for Dahlen, Alejandro Oms, and Buck O'Neil.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by CardCollector

I have no opinion on Kent one way or the other, but stats like WAR aren't "theoretical." They are just more nuanced than the blunt stats available a hundred years ago (which could also explain why some of these guys weren't enshrined previously). If WAR, or ERA+, or other SABR-type stats were around then, the Hall would look very different now.

WAR isn't theoretical but it IS subjective. There is no set definition of WAR and it gives you weird variations. Ex: Barry Bonds with a WAR of 11.9 in 2001 and Roger Clemens with a 12.1 in 1997. Does anybody REALLY think Clemens had a better year in 1997 than Barry did in 2001?

[darwinbulldog]

Why would you even dignify with a response someone who doesn't know what theoretical means? Might as well be arguing that batting average is theoretical.